Aftereffect of Stereoscopic Viewing on Human Body II

  • Yasuyuki Matsuura
Part of the Current Topics in Environmental Health and Preventive Medicine book series (CTEHPM)


Despite this increase in three-dimensional (3D) display products and many studies of stereoscopic vision, the influence of stereoscopic vision on the human body has been insufficiently understood. However, symptoms such as eye fatigue and 3D motion sickness have been apprehensive when viewing 3D films for a prolonged period of time; therefore, it is important to consider the safety of viewing virtual 3D contents for contribution to society. It is generally explained to the public that accommodation and convergence are mismatched during stereoscopic vision and that this is the main reason for the visual fatigue and visually induced motion sickness (VIMS) caused by 3D viewing. This chapter also remarks methods to measure the severity of motion sickness induced by viewing 3D films. From an epidemiological viewpoint, it is useful to obtain novel knowledge for reduction and/or prevention of VIMS.


Stereoscopic images Accommodation Convergence Visually induced motion sickness (VIMS) Biological effect 


  1. 1.
    Burton HE. The optics of Euclid. J Opt Soc Am. 1945;35(5):357–72.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Howard IP, Rogers BJ. Binocular vision and stereopsis. New York: Oxford University Press; 1995.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Charles W. Contributions to the physiology of vision. Part the first. On some remarkable, and hitherto unobserved, phenomena of binocular vision. Philos Trans R Soc Lond. 1838;128:371–94.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    David B. The stereoscope; its history, theory, and construction, with its application to the fine and useful arts and to education. London: John Murray; 1856.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oguchi T, Tanishima M, Haibara M. A century of 3D images. Tokyo: Borndigital; 2012.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Samsung, Viewing TV using the 3D function. Accessed 30 Nov 2017.
  7. 7.
    Shibata T, Kawai T, Noro K, Arimoto A, Ohshima T, Matsuoka S. A study on the welfare application of stereoscopic 3D images for dementia patients. Ergonomics. 2000;36(Suppl):390–1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Murata K, Araki S, Yokoyama K, Yamashita K, Okumatsu Y, Sakoh S. Accumulation of VDT work-related visual fatigue assessed by visual evoked potential, near point distance and critical flicker fusion. Ind Health. 1996;34:61–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamagishi G. Ergonomics for 3D displays and their standardization. Tech Rep Inst Image Inf Telev Eng. 2009;33(16):9–12.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Nishimura K, Iwata T, Murata K. Effects of 3-dimensional video games on visual nervous function. Akita J Med. 2010;37:85–91.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of Japan. Final report of investigation committee for 3D television. 2012.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hippocrates, Coar T. The aphorisms of Hippocrates with a translation into Latin, and English. London: Classics of Medicine Library; 1982.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ikegami J. Konjaku monogatari-shu honshobu (Last Part). Tokyo: Iwanamishoten; 2001.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graybiel A, Wood CD, Miller EF, Cramer DB. Diagnostic criteria for grading the severity of acute motion sickness. Aerosp Med. 1968;39(5):453–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cowings PS, Naifeh KH, Toscane WB. The stability of individual patterns of autonomic responses to motion sickness stimulation. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1990;61:399–405.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ujike H. Report of ISO international workshop on human safety on image. Vision. 2005;17(2):143–5.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    U.S. Navy. Opnavist 3710.7T. 2004.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Inoue T. Eye movement and accommodation when viewing 2D and 3D images. J Inst Telev Eng Jpn. 1996;50–4:423–8.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kennedy RS, Berbaum KS, Dunlap WP, Hettinger LJ. Developing automated methods to quantify the visual stimulus for cybersickness. Hum Factors Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 1996;40(2):1126–30.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kolasinski EM. Simulator sickness in virtual environments (ARI technical report 1027). Alexandria: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences; 1995.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Takane S, Suzuki Y, Sone T, Kim H-Y. A study on control of distance perception by simulation of HRTF. In: Proceedings of the virtual reality society of Japan annual conference. Vol. 1. 1996. p. 55–8.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ohsuga M, Tatsuno T, Shimono F, Hirasawa K, Oyama H, Okamura H. Bedside wellness—development of a virtual forest rehabilitation system. Stud Health Technol Inform. 1998;50:168–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Tsukuda S, Murai Y. A case report of manifest Esotropia after viewing anagryph stereoscopic movie. J Jpn Assoc Certif Orthopt. 1988;16:69–72.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Uchida H, Hiwatashi K. Individual difference of stereoscopic vision. In: Proceedings of the ITE annual convention. Vol. 29. 1993. p. 115–6.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Handa T. The present condition of three-dimensional films and utilization of three-dimensional technology in visual function tests and orthoptics procedures. J Jpn Assoc Certif Orthopt. 2012;41:45–52.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Reason JT, Brand JJ. Motion sickness. London: Academic; 1975.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Balaban CD, Porter JD. Neuroanatomic substrates for vestibulo−autonomic interactions. J Vestib Res. 1998;8:7–16.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Barmack NH. Central vestibular system: vestibular nuclei and posterior cerebellum. Brain Res Bull. 2003;60:511–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Takeda N, Morita M, Kubo T, Yamatodani A, Watanabe T, Wada H, Matsunaga T. Histaminergic mechanism of motion sickness neurochemical and neuropharmacological studies in rats. Acta Otolaryngol. 1986;101:416–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sato M. Individual differences in stereopsis. J Jpn Soc Ophthalmol Opt. 2014;35(2):33–7.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Mizushina H, Ando H. The relationship between disparity range for comfortable viewing of stereoscopic images and individual differences in visual function. Tech Rep Inst Image Inf Telev Eng. 2014;38(11):23–6.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shibata T, Kim J, Hoffman DM, Banks MS. The zone of comfort: predicting visual discomfort with stereo displays. J Vis. 2011;11(8):1–29.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kubota S, Kudo K, Takemoto M, Shimada A, Nakamura Y. Affect of visual acuity and accommodation speed on visual fatigue during movie viewing on 3D television. J Inst Image Inf Telev Eng. 2013;67(7):J262–9.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lambooji M, Ijsselstejin W, Fortuin M, Heynderickx I. Visual discomfort and visual fatigue of stereoscopic displays: a review. J Imaging Sci Technol. 2009;53(3):1–14.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Emoto M, Masaoka K, Yamanoue Y, Sugawara M, Nojiri Y. Horizontal binocular disparities and visual fatigue while viewing stereoscopic display. Vision. 2005;17(2):101–12.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ukai K, Howarth PA. Visual fatigue caused by viewing stereoscopic motion images: background, theories and observations. Displays. 2008;29:106–16.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Toates FM. Vergence eye movements. Doc Ophthalmol. 1974;37:153–214.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ultra-realistic communications forum, ultra-experience design and evaluation section, working group of evaluation of 3D images. Report of evaluation about visual fatigue of stereoscopic video revised edition. 2013.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Miyao M, Ishihara S, Saito S, Kondo T, Sakakibara H, Toyoshima H. Visual accommodation and subject performance during a stereographic object task using liquid crystal shutters. Ergonomics. 1996;39(11):1294–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cambell FW. The depth of field of the human eye. J Mod Opt. 1957;29:157–64.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Charman WN, Whitefoot H. Pupil diameter and depth-of-field of human eye as measured by laser speckle. Opt Acta. 1977;24:1211–6.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kawai T, Morikawa H, Ohta K, Abe N. Basic principles and production technology of stereoscopic images. Tokyo: Ohmsha; 2010.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hiruma N, Fukuda T. Viewing conditions for binocular stereoscopic images base on accommodation response. IEICE Trans Inf Syst D-2. 1990;73(12):2047–54.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nojiri Y, Yamanoue H, Hanazato A, Okano F. Measurement of parallax distribution and its application to the analysis visual comfort for stereoscopic HDTV. Proc SPIE. 1993;5006:195–205.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Yano S, Emoto M, Mitsuhashi T. Two factors in visual fatigue caused by stereoscopic HDTV images. Displays. 2004;25:141–50.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Speranza F, Tam WJ, Renaud R, Hur N. Effect of disparity and motion on visual comfort of stereoscopic images. Proc SPIE. 2006;6055:94–103.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Safety guidelines sub-committee of 3D consortium. 3DC safety guidelines. 2011.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Emoto M, Yano S, Nagata S. Distribution of fusional vergence limit in viewing stereoscopic image systems. J Inst Image Inf Telev Eng. 2001;55(5):703–10.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Yano S. Size of disparity for binocular fusion—a study on stimulus target properties. Trans Inst Electron Inf Commun Eng. 1991;75(10):1720–8.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Nagata S. Distributions of “Vergence Fusional stereoscopic limit (VFSL)” of disparity in stereoscopic display. Trans Virtual Real Soc Jpn. 2002;7(2):239–46.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kojima T. Study of visibility and biomedical effects of 3D images. Doctoral dissertation of graduate school of information science. Nagoya University; 2014.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Shiomi T, Uemoto K, Kojima T, Sano S, Ishio H, Takada H, Omori M, Watanabe T, Miyao M. Simultaneous measurement of lens accommodation and convergence in natural and artificial 3D vision. J Soc Inf Disp. 2013;21(3):120–8.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Kennedy RS, Lane NE, Berbaum KS, Lilienthal MG. A simulator sickness questionnaire (SSQ): a new method for quantifying simulator sickness. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1993;3:203–20.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Holomes SR, Griffin MJ. Correlation between heart rate and the severity of motion sickness caused by optokinetic stimulation. J Psychophysiol. 2001;15:35–42.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Himi N, Koga T, Nakamura E, Kobashi M, Yamane M, Tsujioka K. Differences in autonomic responses between subjects with and without nausea while watching an irregularly oscillating video. Auton Neurosci Basic Clin. 2004;116:46–53.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Yokota Y, Aoki M, Mizuta K, Ito Y, Isu N. Motion sickness susceptibility associated with visually induced postural instability and cardiac autonomic responses in healthy subjects. Acta Otolaryngol. 2005;125:280–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Matsuura Y, Kato H, Mori Y, Kinoshita F, Takaishi T, Takada H. Evaluation of an hour-long stereoscopic film on human body by using functional test of autonomic nervous system. Bull Soc Sci Form. 2015;30(1):66.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Scibora LM, Villard S, Bardy B, Stoffregen TA. Wider stance reduces body sway and motion sickness. In: Proceedings of VIMS 2007. 2007. p. 18–23.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Matsuura Y. Lens accommodation and convergence while stereoscopic images. J Jpn Soc Hyg. 2013;68(s):232.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Matsuura Y, Takada H. Comparison in degree of the motion sickness induced by a 3D video clips. Bull Soc Sci Form. 2013;28(1):64–5.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Cross Cultural StudiesGifu City Women’s CollegeGifuJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Humanities and Social SciencesPrince of Songkla UniversityPattaniThailand

Personalised recommendations